IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION) APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 4666 of 2025 Ms. Jayshree Hazra & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Subhrangshu Panda, Ms. H Roy, Mr. Anupam Singha. For the State : Mr. Yudhisthir Maity. For respondent nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Ms. Bratati Pramanick. Heard on : 06.10.2026 Judgment on : 06.10.2026 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:- 1. By preferring the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29th January, 2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Medinipur (hereinafter, “the D.I. of Schools”), whereby approval of their appointments as Assistant Teachers of Basudevpur Kanya Gurukul, a Girls’ High School (hereinafter, “the said school”) was 2 refused. They further pray for quashing of the said order and consequential approval of their appointments. 2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to presentation of the instant writ petition are that the said school, a Government-aided Class-X Girls’ School, run by Arya Samaj as a minority institution and governed by the Special Rules framed pursuant to Notification No. 404-Edn.(S) dated 19th March, 1973, read with the notification dated 6th June, 2012, published an advertisement in the daily “Dainik Statesman” on 11th January, 2023, inviting applications for two sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher, one in English (Honours/P.G.) and the other in Mathematics (Honours/P.G.). 3. Pursuant thereto, petitioner no. 1, having the requisite qualifications of M.Sc. in Mathematics and B.Ed., applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Mathematics, while petitioner no. 2, having the requisite qualifications of M.A. in English and B.Ed., applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in English. Both the petitioners participated in the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee on 11th and 12th February, 2023 respectively, stood first in the respective panels prepared for the said posts and were thereafter issued appointment letters dated 13th February, 2023, vide Memo Nos. BKG-13/02 and BKG-13/02(I), directing them to join on 15th February, 2023. The petitioners accordingly joined the said school on the said date in their respective posts. 4. The school authority forwarded the selection panels and connected documents to the D.I. of Schools for approval on 22nd February, 2023. As no decision was taken, a reminder was issued on 18th April, 2023. Certain 3 queries were thereafter raised regarding the sanction of posts and the staff pattern, to which the school authority furnished para-wise replies and supporting documents. Nevertheless, by order dated 17th October, 2023, the D.I. of Schools rejected approval of the appointments without affording an opportunity of hearing. 5. The said order was challenged by the school authority in WPA 26518 of 2023. By judgment dated 6th May, 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 17th October, 2023 and directed the D.I. of Schools to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the school authority. Although the order was communicated on 24th May, 2024, no decision was taken within the stipulated period. The petitioners thereafter made several representations and, ultimately, issued a legal notice dated 30th September, 2024. As the order still remained uncompiled with, they initiated contempt proceedings by filing CPAN No. 1720 of 2024 on 7th November, 2024. In the meantime, a hearing was held on 30th July, 2024, pursuant to the order of this Court, at which the petitioners and the school authority were represented and written submissions with supporting documents were filed. 6. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the D.I. of Schools sought a report concerning the validity of the Managing Committee of the school by communications dated 4th October, 2024 and 24th December, 2024. The school authority furnished its replies on 20th and 22nd January, 2025. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025, approval of the petitioners’ appointments was again refused, substantially on the grounds 4 earlier taken, with the additional ground that the Managing Committee which conducted the selection process was not duly constituted. 7. The principal grounds recorded in the impugned order relate to alleged non-production of clear post-sanctioning memoranda and discrepancies in the memo numbers reflected in the staff patterns; alleged non-compliance with paragraph 4 of the notification dated 6th June, 2012 concerning the constitution of the Selection Committee; alleged failure to provide an opportunity to Pass Graduate candidates; appointment of a teacher in English instead of filling up the vacant post of Sanskrit (Third Language); and the alleged invalid constitution of the Managing Committee. 8. 8. Upon being satisfied that the issues raised in the present writ petition require adjudication upon an exchange of affidavits between the parties, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 10.03.2025, directed the parties to exchange their respective affidavits. 9. In the affidavit of the State respondents (respondent nos. 1 to 4), it is contended that, pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2024 passed in W.P.A. No. 26518 of 2023, a hearing was held on 30th July, 2024, at which the petitioners, their learned advocate, the Headmistress and the learned advocate representing the school were present. Upon considering the submissions advanced and upon perusing the documents placed on record, including the relevant Government Circulars, the D.I. of Schools rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioners' appointments by Memo No. 51(6)- Law dated 29th January, 2025. It was, inter alia, recorded that the school authority had failed to produce clear post-sanctioning memos in respect of the 5 appointments, as required under paragraph 2 of G.O. No. 1092-ES/S/10M- 104/2011 (Part-II) dated 6th June, 2012; that the post-sanctioning memo numbers referred to in the staff patterns submitted at different points of time did not tally with one another; that the requirement contained in paragraph 4 of the said G.O. had not been complied with; that the Headmistress had failed to produce the original copies of the orders approving the appointments of the staff, despite being called upon to do so; that G.O. No. 1105-SE/S/1S-26/2010 (Pt-III) dated 20th September, 2016 had not been complied with, inasmuch as the advertisement dated 11th January, 2023 was restricted to candidates possessing Honours/Post-Graduate qualifications, without providing any scope for candidates belonging to the Pass category; and that the school authority had appointed a teacher in English in preference to filling up the vacant post of Sanskrit (Third Language), contrary to G.O. No. 772-Edn.(S) dated 8th July, 1974. 10. The affidavit contends that a complaint dated 22nd July, 2024 was received from the Secretary, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Bengal, alleging that the Managing Committee of the said school, of which Sri Asok Kumar Hatua and Sri Jaydeb Jana purportedly acted as President and Secretary respectively, was illegal and did not conform to the list of members of the Managing Committee approved by the founder body. It further contends that writ petition being W.P.A. No. 678 of 2023 (Narayan Chandra Maity v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), concerning the constitution of the said Managing Committee, is pending and remains sub judice. It is also contended that, although the school authority was called upon to submit a report in respect of the said complaint by Memo Nos. 611-S dated 4th October, 2024 and 763-S 6 dated 24th December, 2024, no report addressing the allegations contained in the complaint was submitted. 11. It is, therefore, contended that, on this additional ground, coupled with the grounds earlier recorded, the prayer for approval of the petitioners' appointments was rejected by the order dated 29th January, 2025. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 accordingly contend that the said order suffers from neither any illegality nor any procedural impropriety and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the school authority states that the school was recognised under the Special Rules pursuant to Notification No. 404- Edn.(S) dated 19th March, 1973 and was upgraded to a Class-X High School with effect from 1st January, 2012, such recognition having been granted by the Administrator of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by Memo dated 12th February, 2013. 13. It is further stated that the school has 15 sanctioned teaching posts, of which 11 were filled and 4, including those of the petitioners, remained to be filled subject to approval. The allegation that the sanctioning memos relating to the petitioners’ appointments were not produced is denied, it being contended that the requisite i-OS-MS V2 and clarification were duly submitted in response to the queries of the D.I. of Schools, along with the relevant Audit Reports and resolutions of the Managing Committee constituting the Selection Committee. The school authority further contends that G.O. No. 1105-SE/S/1S-26/2010 (Pt-III) dated 20th September, 2016, relied upon by the D.I. of Schools, has no application to the school, being a 7 minority institution governed by the Special Rules, and that the applicability of the said G.O. was not even specifically raised for clarification at the hearing held on 30th July, 2024. 14. With regard to the vacant post of Sanskrit (Third Language), the school authority contends that the post continues to remain vacant and is to be filled up as and when occasion arises, the power to do so being vested in the school authority under Clause 6 of Notification No. 1092-ES/S/10M-104/2011 (Part- II) dated 6th June, 2012. As regards the complaint concerning the constitution of the Managing Committee, it is contended that the complaint was lodged only after nearly two years of uninterrupted functioning of the duly approved Managing Committee, during which period a Government Departmental Nominee had also been appointed for a three-year tenure and the D.I. of Schools had approved appointments of other staff members. It is further stated that the issue relating to the constitution of the Managing Committee had already been examined and concluded by a three-member committee constituted by the D.I. of Schools, and that W.P.A. No. 678 of 2023 does not challenge the approval of the Managing Committee or the nomination of the Government nominee, but concerns only the alleged participation of one of its members. The allegation that no response was submitted to the subsequent memos is also denied, the Headmistress having replied thereto by letters dated 20th and 22nd January, 2025. 15. Lastly, the school authority contends that, although the hearing was held on 30th July, 2024 pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2024, the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025 was passed and communicated only two or three days before the superannuation of the concerned D.I. of Schools on 31st 8 January, 2025. It is therefore contended that the impugned order, having been passed without properly considering the explanations and materials furnished by the school authority and immediately prior to the superannuation of the D.I. of Schools, is illegal, unlawful and prejudicial to the institution. 16. Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the school, being a minority-run institution, is governed by the Special Rules framed under the Notifications dated 19th March, 1973 and 6th June, 2012. He contends that, in the first round of litigation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 6th May, 2024, had set aside the earlier order dated 17th October, 2023 refusing approval of the petitioners’ appointments and remanded the matter to the D.I. of Schools for fresh consideration. According to him, despite the petitioners and the school authorities having been afforded an opportunity of hearing and having produced the relevant documents, including those relating to the sanctioned posts and appointments, approval was again refused by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025, substantially on the same grounds, with the additional objection regarding the constitution of the Managing Committee. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed against duly sanctioned vacancies and in accordance with the prescribed staff pattern, and that the queries raised by the D.I. of Schools had duly been answered by the school authorities. 17. With regard to the alleged non-compliance with paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 6th June, 2012, Mr. Panda submits that a three-member Selection Committee had been duly constituted at least three months prior to the commencement of the selection process and that its constitution was 9 communicated to the D.I. of Schools on 16th September, 2021. The Managing Committee remained valid until 18th April, 2025, whereas the selection process had been completed in February, 2023. He further submits that the observation regarding non-production of the original appointment orders is factually incorrect, as the school authorities had produced the relevant documents, including orders evidencing approval of appointments, which were otherwise issued from the office of the D.I. of Schools itself. It is therefore contended that the alleged deficiencies relied upon by the D.I. of Schools were either duly explained or unsupported by the materials on record. 18. As regards the objection relating to the qualification of the candidates and the alleged non-compliance with the requirement concerning Pass Graduate candidates, Mr. Panda submits that the Notification dated 4th September, 1998 requires an appropriate balance between teachers possessing Pass Graduate and Honours/Post-Graduate qualifications and that the prescribed ratio stood duly complied with in both the Language and Science Groups even after the appointments in question. He further contends that the Notification dated 20th September, 2016 has no application to the school, which is governed by the Special Rules under the Notification dated 6th June, 2012. It is also submitted that the post of Sanskrit (Third Language) continues to remain vacant and no appointment in English has been made against that post. According to him, the objection that the appointment process resulted in diversion of the Sanskrit post is therefore wholly misconceived. 19. Finally, Mr. Panda submits that the Managing Committee which conducted the selection process had itself been duly approved by the D.I. of Schools by Memo dated 21st March, 2022, with a Government nominee 10 having also been appointed thereto, and that several appointments made by the same Managing Committee had subsequently been approved by the D.I. of Schools. The objection regarding its constitution is, therefore, contended to be wholly unsustainable. On these grounds, it is argued that the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025 is arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Rima Das (Bal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.(WP No. 16408 (W) of 2005 & WP No. 16580 (W) of 2004) , Silpa Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.( WP No. 8624 (W) of 2011) and Kushadhwaj Mondal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.(WP No. 1402 (W) of 2005), in support of the proposition that appointments and approval thereof in minority institutions governed by Special Rules stand on a distinct footing from those governed by the West Bengal School Service Commission Act. 20. Mr. Maity, learned Advocate appearing for the State, defends the order passed by the D.I. of Schools, contending, inter alia, that there were discrepancies in the post-sanctioning memoranda produced by the school. Accordingly, the D.I. of Schools called upon the school authorities to produce the relevant post-sanctioning memoranda and the letters approving the appointments of all teaching and non-teaching staff. However, the school authorities failed to produce the said documents at the time of hearing and also failed to satisfactorily clarify the issues specifically raised by the D.I. of Schools. 21. Mr. Maity submits that the requirements stipulated in the notification dated 04.09.1998 were not complied with by the school authorities and that 11 no opportunity was afforded to candidates possessing Pass Graduate qualifications to apply for the posts. He further submits that the Managing Committee which conducted the selection process was not duly constituted and that its constitution was the subject of a dispute between two rival groups, resulting in the institution of two writ petitions before this Court. He therefore contends that, having regard to these circumstances, the D.I. of Schools rightly declined to accord approval to the petitioners’ appointments. 22. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the school authority, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the school has 15 sanctioned teaching posts and that the petitioners were selected and appointed against sanctioned vacancies in accordance with law. He reiterates that the relevant documents had been furnished before the D.I. of Schools and that the Managing Committee was duly approved by the competent authority. According to him, the subsequent dispute regarding its constitution has no bearing upon the validity of the selection process undertaken during its subsistence. 23. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 24. The Notification dated 19th March, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Rules of 1973”) and the Schedule appended thereto clearly indicate that Basudev Kanya Gurukul is an institution established and administered by the Arya Samaj and is a minority-run institution, as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department on 10th September, 2015. Rule 7 of the Special Rules of 1973 12 confers upon the School Committee the power to appoint both temporary and permanent employees of the institution. 25. The Notification dated 6th June, 2012 prescribes the procedure for recruitment in Arya Samaj minority institutions enjoying special rules for their management. The said Notification provides that appointments shall be made against clear vacancies in permanent or additional posts duly sanctioned by the competent authority. Clause 4 of that notification dated 06.06.2012 stipulates that appointments shall be made by the school authority in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure through a Selection Committee duly constituted by the school authority at least three months prior to the date of interview/written test. The constitution of such Selection Committee is required to be communicated to the office of the D.I. of Schools and the Director of School Education, along with the post- sanctioning memorandum, the cause of occurrence of the vacancy, a no- litigation certificate in respect of the vacancy concerned, and particulars regarding the validity of the Managing Committee. Clause 6 further provides that appointments to the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress and Assistant Teacher shall be made against sanctioned vacant posts, the category of the post, whether Graduate or Honours/Post-Graduate, being determined by the school authority in accordance with G.O. No. 670-SE(S) dated 4th September, 1998. 26. The school authority contends that the school was established and recognised as a 2-Class Junior High School by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education with effect from 1st January, 1967 and was subsequently recognised as a 4-Class Junior High School with effect from 1st January, 1968. 13 Accordingly, as a 4-Class Junior High School, the school was entitled to six sanctioned teaching posts. Thereafter, by Memo dated 4th August, 1992, as appearing at page 80 of the writ petition, one additional teaching post was sanctioned, followed by sanction of two further additional posts by Memo dated 21st December, 1992 (page 79 of the writ petition). Subsequently, by Memo dated 12th February, 2013 (page no. 77 of the writ petition), the school was upgraded to Class IX with effect from 1st January, 2012 and to Class X with effect from 1st January, 2013. In terms of the Notification dated 8th July, 1974 and also as per notification dated 4.9.1998, a Class-X school is entitled to twelve sanctioned teaching posts. Consequently, upon taking into account the three additional posts sanctioned in 1992, the school presently has fifteen sanctioned teaching posts, comprising twelve posts admissible for a Class-X school and three additional posts. The copy of the i-OS-MS V2 placed at page 75 of the writ petition also reflects fifteen sanctioned teaching posts in the school. A copy of i-OS-MS V2 (as appearing at 232) speaks that by a memo. dated 21.12.1992, one post of Headmistress and 8 (eight) posts of Assistant teachers were sanctioned whereas by another memo. dated 12.02.2013, further 6(six) posts were sanctioned and therefore, total sanctioned posts in the school stood 15 (fifteen) and part -B of the i-OS-MS V2 indicates that one post in English and one post in Mathematics stood vacant. 27. Therefore, it remains unclear what post sanctioning memoranda the D.I. of schools needed. All those documents regarding recognition and upgradation of the school being the documents issued by the State respondents should have been kept in the office of the State respondents. Therefore, I do not find 14 any justification of the ground that due to failure of production of post sanctioning memorandum. 28. A communication dated 5th January, 2023 addressed by the School Committee to the D.I. of Schools, as appearing at page 18 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the school authority, indicates that the school had duly intimated that the two posts in question had been created pursuant to the upgradation of the school under the Memo dated 12th March, 2013, that there was no litigation in respect of the said vacancies as on that date, and that the Managing Committee was validly constituted up to 18th April, 2025. The said communication also furnished the D.I. of Schools with details regarding the mode and manner of the selection process and the allocation of marks. The resolution of the School Committee dated 21st January, 2023 further records the constitution of the Selection Committee and the decision to undertake the selection process in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The selection process was thereafter completed in February, 2023. 29. In a communication dated 20th January, 2025 addressed by the Headmistress to the D.I. of Schools, it was stated that the Managing Committee under whose supervision the recruitment process was conducted had been constituted on 19th April, 2022 and its tenure was valid up to 18th April, 2025. It was further stated that a departmental nominee had been placed on the Managing Committee by the office of the D.I. of Schools on 5th April, 2022. A further communication dated 22nd January, 2025 indicates that an investigation had been conducted by the D.E.O.-I, DEB, Purba Medinipur, pursuant to which the Headmistress had been called before the 15 investigating authority; however, no final report of the said investigation had been furnished as on that date. 30. From the i-OS-MS V2 (Part-B), it appears that the school has five (5) sanctioned posts in the Language Group and four (4) sanctioned posts in the Science Group. Consequently, 50% of the posts in the respective groups are required to be earmarked for candidates possessing Honours/Post-Graduate qualifications. Staff pattern of the school indicates that in language group, there two pass graduate teachers whereas in science group, there are three pass graduate teachers. Therefore, viewed in the light of the said staff pattern, this Court finds no apparent basis to hold that the appointments in question were made in contravention of the relevant Government Notification/Circular. 31. This Court is also unable to sustain the objection founded upon the Notification dated 20th September, 2016 (recruitment rules of 2016). Having regard to the undisputed status of the school as a minority institution governed by the Special Rules, the applicability of a provision framed in the context of the statutory recruitment regime under the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 cannot be presumed in the absence of any specific provision extending the same to the institution in question. The contention of the school authority that the Notification dated 6th June, 2012 constitutes the governing framework for recruitment in the present case, therefore, merits acceptance. Similarly, the objection relating to the Sanskrit (Third Language) post does not warrant refusal of approval, particularly when the said post admittedly continues to remain vacant and there is no material to establish that any appointment in English has been made against the sanctioned post of Sanskrit. 16 32. On consideration of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the objections raised by the D.I. of Schools do not justify refusal of approval of the petitioners’ appointments. The materials on record indicate that the appointments were made against sanctioned posts and that the school authorities had furnished the relevant documents and clarifications in response to the queries raised by the D.I. of Schools. 33. Ordinarily, this Court would be slow to issue a positive direction requiring an administrative authority to accord approval, so as not to encroach upon the administrative domain of the competent authority; however, the facts of the present case warrant a departure from such restraint. The issue has already been considered once and, pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, whereafter the petitioners and the school authority were afforded an opportunity of hearing and the relevant materials were placed before the D.I. of Schools. Despite the same, approval has again been declined substantially on the very grounds which had earlier been raised and explained, with no sustainable new circumstance having been brought on record. In these circumstances, a further remand would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong the matter by permitting the authority to reiterate its earlier decision on one ground or another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association, (2004) 8 SCC 683, has deprecated such an approach and held that an administrative authority cannot circumvent the effect of judicial directions by resorting to successive or different justifications for maintaining its earlier position. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case and the findings recorded hereinabove, 17 this Court is, therefore, of the view that a positive direction to accord approval to the petitioners’ appointments would not amount to an impermissible encroachment upon the administrative domain, but would be a necessary consequence of the adjudication of the legality of the grounds on which such approval has been withheld. 34. From the decisions in the aforesaid cases, namely, Smt. Rima Das (Bal) (supra), Smt. Shilpa Ghosh (supra), and Kushdhwasj Mondal (supra), it transpires that, in those matters, positive directions were issued for approval of the appointments of the petitioners therein. 35. In view of the aforesaid findings, the writ petition succeeds. The order dated 29th January, 2025 passed by the D.I. of Schools rejecting the proposal for approval of the petitioners’ appointments is hereby set aside and quashed. The D.I. of Schools concerned is directed to accord approval to the appointments of the petitioners against the respective sanctioned posts, in accordance with the applicable Special Rules, and to take all consequential steps in that regard including release of salary and other service-related benefits to the petitioners, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 36. With these observations and order, the writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)